Jack White's"The Great Zapruder Film Hoax" Videotape

Jack White's latest video release starts out by proclaiming that
the Zapruder Film is a fraud and is of no value to serious
researchers.

But there's nothing in the video that supports this proclamation.

White claims the Mary Moorman photo is genuine, although we cannot
be sure of its chain of possession. White claims other materials are
altered for bizarre reasons - but I guess we can ignore the chain
of possession problem, and agree that the Mary Moorman Polaroid in
question is genuine.

But White wants us to believe that Moorman was standing in the street
when she took her most famous Polaroid photograph. And his basis for
this claim? Not Jean Hill's INITIAL statements to the media (when she
never mentioned this movement, and when she plainly stated that she
didn't see anyone firing a weapon, only heard the shots [later
embellished to her seeing smoke and a shooter...].

And White does not rely upon Hill's original recollections of the
event - but her later stories...stories that changed dramatically
from her initial statements.

Nor does White believe in Hill's Warren Commission Testimony (he
buys Mark Lane's and Hill's theory that her testimony was
significantly altered). Of course, the "testimony alterers" left IN
Jean Hill's statements that were critical of the Warren Commissions'
basic findings, like:

"I have always said there were some four to six shots. There were
three shots---one right after the other, and a distinct pause, or
just a moment's pause, and then I heard more."

...and...

"I think there were at least four Or five shots and perhaps six,
but I know there were more than three."

...and...

"I won't say positively, I think I can still seemingly hear it, and
I would still say there were more, you know, I'm saying 4 to 6. I
know there were at least 4, and I just almost swear that I heard 5
or 6."

...and...

"Well, I just think that he was hit after Kennedy was hit because,
well, Just the way that it looked, I would say that he [Governor
Connally] was hit later."

...and...

"Well, evidently I didn't because the only conscious recollection I
have of that---I mean---until all this other came out---I had always
thought that they came from the knoll."

...and this exchange...

Mr. SPECTER. Any conscious impression of where this third shot came
from?

Mrs. HILL. Not any different from any of them. I thought it was just
people shooting from the knoll---I did think there was more than one
person shooting.

Mr. SPECTER. You did think there was more than one person shooting?

Mrs. HILL. Yes, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. What made you think that?

Mrs. HILL The way the 'gun report sounded and the difference in the way
they were fired-the timing.

Mr. SPECTER. What was your impression as to the source of the second
group of shots which you have described as the fourth, perhaps the
fifth, and perhaps the sixth shot?

Mrs. HILL. Well, nothing, except that I thought that they were fired
by someone else.

Mr. SPECTER. And did you have any idea where they were coming from?

Mrs. HILL. No; as I said, I thought they were coming from the general
direction of that knoll.

You would think that the Warren Commission's "testimony alterers"
could do a better job promoting their employers' cause than leave the
above statements IN the official Record.

So...White is basing his main "proof" of Zapruder film alteration on
the Moorman Polaroid and Jean Hill's changing stories.

White is accepting as fact Jean Hill's statement that she jumped out
in the street in front of the Presidential limo. And because the
Zapruder film doesn't show this movement - the Zapruder film is a hoax.

But there's other photographic evidence that we need to look at.
The Bond slides, Nix, Muchmore and Bronson films all show that Jean Hill is
mistaken - they show that neither Hill nor Moorman jumped into the
street in front of the Presidential limo.

But White has an answer for that, too. ALL those films and slides have
been tampered with by the FBI and/or other agencies, Jack tells us.

Does ANYONE really believe that ALL these films have been tampered
with - to merely change the movements of Jean Hill and Mary Moorman?
You HAVE to believe that they were - if you buy Jack White's theory.

Jack doesn't like how the Moorman photo and the Zapruder film
"line up" with each other - thereby proving Zapruder film alteration.
But Michael Parks' study shows us that due to Moorman's physical
posture and the design of the Polaroid camera, Jack's height
"discrepancy" theory is explainable, and is in no manner, shape,
nor form a "proof" of Zapruder film alteration.

So...here we are, well into the video's major "alteration theory,"
yet we have absolutely NO proof of Zapruder film alteration.

White now shows us overlays of the Zapruder film versus the Turner
Network study's recreation of the assassination. But, OOOPS! There's
an error in the recreation, so all of White's comparisons are moot.

To his credit, White includes a printed "disclaimer" with copies of
his video: "My narration notes that the replica JFK limo placed in
the Z313 location by professional surveyors is probably about 8 feet
too far east, which also places Mary Moorman too far east by the
same amount. I do not know whether this egregious error resulted
from faulty furnished documentation, human error, or some unknown
motive by Turner Network Television, producers of a documentary
which hired the surveyors. My use of limo photos in this slightly
errant position has no significant effect on my research or
conclusions, but you should be aware of the surveyor error."

Yes - yet ANOTHER conspiracy. But we can toss the first ten minutes
of White video.

White then wants us to believe that the Zapruder film alterers were
SO adept that they were able to take the far curb as a "break point"
and enlarge ONLY the background 130 per cent throughout the Zapruder film.
But because White's "yellow curb marker stripes" argument is based on
the inaccurate TNT positioning of the Presidential limo, this portion
of the video presents nothing proving Zapruder film alteration, either.

White then wants us to believe that the Zapruder film alterers add
or subtract a passing pick-up truck bed's cargo. White doesn't tell
us that the two exposures he wants us to compare were taken about 20
seconds apart, though.

The video goes on and on proving absolutely nothing regarding
Zapruder film alteration. White discusses "cardboard people" along
the motorcade route, mis-states Zapruder's own WC testimony regarding
the filming of the motorcade and Zapruder's authenticating his film
during the Clay Shaw trial, tells us that 30 seconds or more is
"missing" from the Zapruder film (we have film footage taken by
at least four other photographers showing what would be in the
"missing" portion of Zapruder's film - the Presidential limo
making that final turn...a sequence, of course, which lasts
no where near White's proclaimed "30 seconds" of missing film).

White ends the video by offering information about William Reymond.
Reymond claims to have seen a copy of the "original" Zapruder film!
(White continues to ignore Zapruder's Clay Shaw trial testimony in
which Zapruder authenticates his footage, of course.)

This "original" Zapruder film that White wants us to believe in is
further evidence of the alteration of the Towner, Hughes, Bell and
Martin films - because Reymond describes a "very wide turn" that
doesn't exist on either these others photographic records.

Reymond wants us to believe that the non-existent wide turn of the
Presidential limo caused the professional assassins to "miss" JFK's
head and hit him in the throat. Well - think about that. A LATERAL,
HORIZONTAL "error" of a few feet make assassins miss their target
VERTICALLY? And Reymond states that the best shooters in the world
were on this assignment!

Reymond wants us to believe that the Stemmons Stret sign was hit by
an errant shot around Zapruder Frame 202. Now we have to add one of
the Willis photos to our list of sinisterly "altered" images - because
it shows no such damage to the Stemmons sign. And those alterers of the
Zapruder film sure had their work cut out (no pun intended) for them -
because many Zapruder frames clearly show no damage to the Stemmons
sign.

But wait - there's MORE altered photos, if we are to believe
Reymond and White! Clint Grant took a photograph of the Stemmons
sign from the motorcade's Camera Car, showing NO damage to the sign.
And Richard Oscar Bothun's "Number Four photograph" shows an undamaged
Stemmons sign. And Life Magazine's photographer Arthur Burroughs
Rickerby took an exposure of the Stemmons sign...no damage evident,
either. And, of course, at least four of Wilma Bond's slides show no
damage to the Stemmons sign...but White has already declared her
images to be altered.

There's MORE...Free-lance photographer Jim Murray took photographs
that included the Stemmons sign in the background (you'll remember
one of his photos, taken a few minutes after the assassination - a
low angle shot - as Officer Foster is kneeling and pointing back
towards the Texas School Book Depository). This and other photos taken
by Murray show no Stemmons sign damage.

Again - if we are to believe the Reymond story promoted and endorsed by
Jack White, ALL the above photographic evidence has been altered!

Recapping: For you to believe the theories touted and promoted by
Jack White and Reymond in this video, you MUST accept these facts:

1. The Mary Moorman photograph is authentic; but

2. The exposures taken by Bond, Nix, Muchmore, Bronson, Towner, Hughes,
Bell, Martin, Grant, Bothun, Burroughs, and Murray (and probably
others I have missed) have ALL BEEN SINISTERLY TAMPERED WITH.

Reymond's story is demonstrably nonsense. Jack White's video is not
believable. Do not waste your time nor money on this "research."